Gaijin does not want to admit that they did a lazy and poor job of implementing the up-armored leapard tanks by giving the unrealistic ~350mm KE equivalence to the ~100mm thick (for reference the 100mm UFP of T54 has 160mm equivalence at 53 degrees) MEXAS addon composite armor (rather hypocritical considering what they did to Challenger2 TES’s side addon composite) instead of increasing the KE of the hull internal NERA.
The claim that “D-tech standard to our information” consists of “just additional composite screens”, as TrickZZter mentions, is quite strong. It would be really helpful if the sources the dev used to justify this could be disclosed to the players, for a generous sharing of knowledge. If, for say, such sources exist and are not merely an excuse used to falsely justify this lazy implementation.
In the heartbreaking case that the devs are lying, no such sources is known by the devs and they have no idea of what D-tech standard really consists of, isn’t the player’s assumption that the internal hull NERA were upgraded more reasonable than magically enchanting the 100mm composite screen to nearly 350mm equivalent RHA (so much better than steel wow~) and less of a double standard given how TES side composites were treated by the devs?
Are there any good sources to disprove this claim? Unfortunately the Swedish trials that Gaijin likes does not have an estimate for the KE protection of the Lower Front Plate:
Ideally any official statement suggesting that the LFP protection is improved would disprove their assumption. Looking through some of the documents in the forum and issues was not fruitful, the LFP is rarely mentioned and armor improvements are usually summarized as “Improved hull protection”.
This would be relevant to Leopard 2 variants: A6EX (PSO demo vehicle), A7V(Hu), all Strv122s.
Any help would be appreciated!
I was under the impression the German armor was considerably overperforming just due to ballistics problems with the game engine as it currently sits.
Oh, and no, I don’t think there is any information that will change their minds whether it’s valid or not. They refuse to use primary sources such as the official flight data NATOPS for the F-5 series to nerf them.
German armor is slightly worse than Sweden’s could be what the correction means by underperforming. If by overperforming you mean armors in general, then it could be because the long-rod APFSDS formula WT uses gives perforation values lower then real life tests for many modern rounds.
They heavily overperform in-game because Russia is using tertiary articles from Russia under the presumption that they had one so they tested it… but the data they use predates the capture of the vehicle and doesn’t match the NATOPS calculated or flight test data.
Russian tanks over performing means the Leopards can’t be? Is that what you are trying to say here?
The Russian tanks don’t over perform because of volumetric… they over perform because Gaijin has literally given them an absurdly high level of protection that doesn’t seem to be substantiated either in documentation or real life based on real world evidence contrary to what the game shows.
Can I see a link to an explanation for this statement or perhaps you could elaborate and show proof? My understanding is that there are several areas of the Leopards currently over performing by a considerable amount.
What does my profile pic have to do with my statement?
well go ahead show me, you are the ones making those claims
your profile pic has nothing to do with that,
you claimed to be an abrams tanker at one point
You were the one claiming stuff about overperformance first so i would like to see proof from your side
its a constant from you to continously claim sth without backing it up
There isn’t an area where the tank is “overperforming” for protection, all of them are underperforming, with some areas (such as the mantlet), missing somewhere between 450 to 550mm of protection (and yes, WE HAVE TRIED TO REPORT THAT, but BAAINBw blocked us from doing so).
You called me out for not posting proof and then made a counter claim without proof. I said my understanding was that it is over performing so maybe I’m wrong and I’m open to anything you have to share … so far that’s nothing. I don’t intend to sit here and debate about it. If you have something that obviously proves me wrong there is no sense hiding it in the hopes that you can egg on a long drawn out back and forth conversation for no reason.
Thank you, this is one tank. I wonder if the ballistics causing constant non penetrations in certain angles that should clearly go through have something to do with why Gaijin isn’t modeling it better.
You’d have to tell me about “these certain angles”, because I’m assuming your shots have simply been eaten by volumetric modelling of the few plates that the tank actually has.
How do the other variants compare?
Better turret protection wise, still far below what they should be.
You’re trying to incite a flame war and refuse to engage in a respectful or productive manner I see no reason you are here except to antagonize myself and others.
Clearly that Leopard variant is underperforming in certain regards and clearly the tank benefits in others. Not sure why this is so fantastical to you that a vague statement can be made without needing to go in a multi page long post about the nitty gritty details.
